Search

As digital technologies have made their way into news production, allowing news organizations to measure audience behaviors and engagement in real-time, click-based and editorial goals have become increasingly intertwined. Ongoing developments in algorithmic technologies allow editors to bring their audience into the newsroom using specialized tools such as Chartbeat or Google Analytics. This article examines how these technologies have affected the composition of the audience and their power to influence news-making processes inside two Chilean newsrooms. Drawing on several months of newsroom ethnography, we identify how the pursuit of “clickable news” impacts editorial processes and journalistic priorities by changing the datafied audience opinion power behind news production. Shifts in opinion power, loss of control, and increased platform dependency may contribute to a concentrated media landscape. Our findings show that opinion power has shifted to a datafied version of the audience, raising new questions about platform dependency and editorial autonomy in media organizations. These results carry significant implications for understanding the chase for traffic in current multiplatform newsrooms and how this phenomenon impacts news production.

Strategic litigation against public participation is a threat to public interest journalism. Although typically a defamation claim underpins a SLAPP, the GDPR may serve as an alternative basis. This paper explores how public interest journalism is protected, and could be better protected, from abusive GDPR proceedings. The GDPR addresses the tension between data protection and freedom of expression by providing for a journalistic exemption. However, narrow national implementations of this provision leave the GDPR open for abuse. By analysing GDPR proceedings against newspaper Forbes Hungary, the paper illustrates how the GDPR can be instrumentalised as a SLAPP strategy. As European anti-SLAPP initiatives are finetuned, abusive GDPR proceedings need to be recognised as emerging forms of SLAPPs, requiring more attention to inadequate engagement with European freedom of expression standards in national implementations of the GDPR, data protection authorities’ role in facilitating SLAPPs, and the chilling effects of GDPR sanctions.

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. With 30,000 downloads, the first and second editions of the e-book (2013, 2015) have proved hugely successful. The new updated edition summarises over 250 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). The latest edition of the e-book is also available in French and in German. For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.

European media regulation currently faces several challenges: technology, media and markets have become convergent, while – at the same time – the situations in the individual member states differ in respect of media use, the usage of end devices as well as regulatory aims and frameworks. These challenges can be met with an updated regulatory framework. Core attributes of this updated framework are a reorientation relative to the current framework, a basis in principles, learning aptitude, and a coherent approach to media regulation. This is, however, not just an incremental but a structural change. Other than the regulatory framework currently in place, which takes different types of audiovisual services as a starting point for specific regulation just to follow the same aims, a reoriented regulatory framework could allow for effective regulations that follow specific goals and that address the media landscape as a whole – also taking into account the peculiarities of certain types of media in specific provisions by introducing a general regulation as well as one built upon that. Such a framework is capable of effectively managing a convergent media landscape. An incentive-based opt-in approach would further improve the efficiency of this framework, offering a self-categorisation option for content providers and unburdening regulators while retaining the needed flexibility. Privileging desirable public value services will give incentives for providing such media content across different audiovisual services and form the basis of a vivid and pluralistic media landscape. However, European regulation still has to guarantee a minimum standard. To address the different situations in the member states, they will need some leeway for implementation. This calls for a principle-driven approach, setting coherent regulatory aims and a general framework across Europe, but leaving it to the member states to define requirements for the different content categories for the providers to opt-in to. This will finally lead to a consistent regulatory framework throughout the EU, which is still able to manage the heterogeneity of the different media landscapes. This paper is based on a larger study by the Hans Bredow Institute (HBI) and the Institute for Information Law (IViR).

In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.

The use of algorithmically tailored individual news feeds is increasingly viewed as an important strategy for accommodating consumers’ information needs by legacy media. However, growing personalization of news distribution also raises normative concerns about the societal function of legacy media, in particular when dealing with personalization of traumatic and polarizing content. To extend the discussion of these concerns beyond the current focus on the role of news personalization in Western democracies, this article offers a conceptual assessment of perspectives for adopting personalization for conflict coverage in Ukraine and Russia, where media systems enjoy a lesser degree of press freedom. Using the coverage of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine as a case study, the article offers a conceptual framework for assessing the impact of personalization on the distribution of conflict-related news in a non-Western context.

Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.

With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation tasks organizations to perform a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) to consider fundamental rights risks of their artificial intelligence (AI) system. However, assessing risks can be challenging, as fundamental rights are often considered abstract in nature. So far, guidance regarding DPIAs has largely focussed on data protection, leaving broader fundamental rights aspects less elaborated. This is problematic because potential negative societal consequences of AI systems may remain unaddressed and damage public trust in organizations using AI. Towards this, we introduce a practical, four-Phased framework, assisting organizations with performing fundamental rights impact assessments. This involves organizations (i) defining the system’s purposes and tasks, and the responsibilities of parties involved in the AI system; (ii) assessing the risks regarding the system’s development; (iii) justifying why the risks of potential infringements on rights are proportionate; and (iv) adopt organizational and/or technical measures mitigating risks identified. We further indicate how regulators might support these processes with practical guidance.

National treatment applies to all copyright rights, unless such treatment is excluded under the Berne Convention or the TRIPS Agreement. Renumeration rights are not specific in these agreements, but flow from the rights of authors and owners. Therefore, questions arise about when national treatment applies and when it does not. This chapter analyses the types of remuneration rights in four broad categories: exceptions, rights per se, exploitation contracts and residual rights. The chapter shows the extent of national treatment obligations to these categories of rights of remuneration found in national copyright law.

This dissertation asks how the law can shed light on social media recommender systems: the algorithmic tools which platforms use to rank and curate online content. Recommender systems fulfil an important gatekeeping function in social media governance, but their actions are poorly understood. Legal reforms are now underway in EU law to impose transparency rules on social media recommenders, and the goal of this dissertation is to interrogate the accountability relations implied by this regulatory project. What kinds of information is the law demanding about social media recommender systems? Who is included in these new models of accountability, and who is excluded? This dissertation critiques a dominant paradigm in recent law and policy focused on algorithmic explanations. Building on insights from critical transparency studies and algorithm studies, it argues that disclosure regulation should move from algorithmic transparency toward platform observability: approaching recommenders not as discrete algorithmic artifacts but as complex sociotechnical systems shaped in important ways by their users and operators. Before any attempt to ‘open the black box’ of algorithmic machine learning, therefore, regulating for observability invites us to ask how recommenders find uptake in practice; to demand basic data on recommender inputs, outputs and interventions; to ask what is being recommend, sooner than why. Several avenues for observability regulation are explored, including platform ad archives; notices for visibility restrictions (or ‘shadow bans’); and researcher APIs. Through solutions such as these, which render visible recommender outcomes, this dissertation outlines a vision for a more democratic media governance—one which supports informed and inclusive deliberation about, across and within social media’s personalised publics.

Martin Senftleben explores possibilities for weaving a general bias in favour of artistic expression into the fabric of the EU system of trademark limitations and, in particular, the test of compliance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. Following Dreyfuss’ recommendation to develop specific rules when expressive use is at issue, the analysis leads to the insight that use of trademarks should be deemed fair in artistic contexts unless the trademark proprietor manages to overcome the legal presumption of fairness by presenting individualized facts that provide proof of unusually grave trademark harm. More specifically, the trademark owner should demonstrate that, despite the artistic setting, the use explicitly misleads consumers as to the commercial origin of the artwork. In dilution cases, the trademark owner should show that the use deliberately blurs, tarnishes or exploits in an unfair manner the distinctiveness or repute of the trademark.

As part of its Open Science agenda, the EU is mainstreaming open access to research data through a mix of instruments. The reforms are an attempt to institutionalise calls from several sectors and organisations for publicly funded research to be generally accessible without restraint on the basis that science should never be locked behind paywalls. The Open Data Directive in particular is intended to foster unhindered and non-discriminatory access to data derived from publicly funded research for both commercial and non-commercial uses. Open content licensing plays a key role. The recent Data Governance Act and the proposed Data Act further institutionalise research data governance. This chapter examines the significance of these developments for academic research, particularly from the perspective of academic freedom which is a core element of scholarship.

Data subject rights constitute critical tools for empowerment in the digitized society. There is a growing trend of relying on third parties to facilitate or coordinate the collective exercises of data rights, on behalf of one or more data subjects.This contribution refers to these parties as ‘Data Rights Intermediaries’ (DRIs), ie where an ‘intermediating’ party facilitates or enables the collective exercise of data rights. The exercise of data rights by these DRIs on behalf of the data subjects can only be effectuated with the help of mandates.Data rights mandates are not expressly framed in the GDPR their delineation can be ambiguous. It is important to highlight that data rights are mandatable and this without affecting their inalienability in light of their fundamental rights’ nature.This article argues that contract law and fiduciary duties both have longstanding traditions and robust norms in many jurisdictions, all of which can be explored towards shaping the appropriate environment to regulate data rights mandates in particular.The article concludes that the key in unlocking the full potential of data rights mandates can already be found in existing civil law constructs, whose diversity reveals the need for solidifying the responsibility and accountability of mandated DRIs. The continued adherence to fundamental contract law principles will have to be complemented by a robust framework of institutional safeguards. The need for such safeguards stems from the vulnerable position of data subjects, both vis-à-vis DRIs as well as data controllers.

Researchers engaged in text and data mining (TDM) research collect vast amounts of digitized material and use software to analyze and extract information from it. TDM is a crucial first step to many machine learning, digital humanities, and social science applications, addressing some of the world’s greatest scientific and societal challenges, from predicting and tracking COVID-19 to battling hate speech and disinformation. Although applications of TDM often occur across borders, with researchers, subjects, and materials in more than one country, a patchwork of copyright laws across jurisdictions limits where and how TDM research can occur. With the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, and legislatures around the world, deliberating the harmonization of copyright exceptions for various research uses, we discuss policy measures that can ensure that TDM research is unambiguously authorized under copyright law.

HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) has evolved into the de facto standard for secure Web browsing. Through the certificate-based authentication protocol, Web services and Internet users fir...

A potentially powerful method of social-scientific data collection and investigation has been created by an unexpected institution: the law. Article 15 of the EU’s 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) mandates that individuals have electronic access to a copy of their personal data, and all major digital platforms now comply with this law by providing users with “data download packages” (DDPs). Through voluntary donation of DDPs, all data collected by public and private entities during the course of citizens’ digital life can be obtained and analyzed to answer social-scientific questions – with consent. Thus, consented DDPs open the way for vast new research opportunities. However, while this entirely new method of data collection will undoubtedly gain popularity in the coming years, it also comes with its own questions of representativeness and measurement quality, which are often evaluated systematically by means of an error framework. Therefore, in this paper we provide a blueprint for digital trace data collection using DDPs, and devise a “total error framework” for such projects. Our error framework for digital trace data collection through data donation is intended to facilitate high quality social-scientific investigations using DDPs while critically reflecting its unique methodological challenges and sources of error. In addition, we provide a quality control checklist to guide researchers in leveraging the vast opportunities afforded by this new mode of investigation.

The digital traces that people leave through their use of various online platforms provide tremendous opportunities for studying human behavior. However, the collection of these data is hampered by legal, ethical, and technical challenges. We present a framework and tool for collecting these data through a data donation platform where consenting participants can securely submit their digital traces. This approach leverages recent developments in data rights that have given people more control over their own data, such as legislation that now mandates companies to make digital trace data available on request in a machine-readable format. By transparently requesting access to specific parts of this data for clearly communicated academic purposes, the data ownership and privacy of participants is respected, and researchers are less dependent on commercial organizations that store this data in proprietary archives. In this paper we outline the general design principles, the current state of the tool, and future development goals.

Information security is something you do, not something you have. It's a recurring process of finding weaknesses and fixing them, only for the next weakness to be discovered, and fixed, and so on. Yet, European Union rules in this field are not built around this cycle of making and breaking: doing offensive information security research is not always legal, and doubts about its legality can have a chilling effect. At the same time, the results of such research are sometimes not used to allow others to take defensive measures, but instead are used to attack. In this article, I review whether states have an obligation under the right to science and the right to communications freedom to develop governance which addresses these two issues. I first discuss the characteristics of this cycle of making and breaking. I then discuss the rules in the European Union with regard to this cycle. Then I discuss how the right to science and the right to communications freedom under the European Convention for Human Rights , the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights apply to this domain. I then conclude that states must recognise a right to research information security vulnerabilities, but that this right comes with a duty of researchers to disclose their findings in a way which strengthens information security.

In 2011 heeft SEO Economisch Onderzoek (SEO), samen met het Instituut voor Informatierecht (IViR) en TNO Informatie- en Communicatietechnologie de waarde bepaald van commerciële radiovergunningen indien deze zouden worden verlengd. Hoewel ook voor kavel A7 een waarde werd vastgesteld uitgaande van verlenging, was dit kavel ten tijde van de verlenging niet in gebruik en kon het dus niet worden verlengd. Ondertussen heeft het ministerie van Economische Zaken (EZ) de vergunning voor kavel A7 geveild. Net als bij eerdere verleningsprocedures is het hierbij van belang dat een gelijk speelveld bestaat tussen de huidige vergunninghouders van de overige landelijke kavels en de nieuwe vergunninghouder van de vergunning voor kavel A7. Als dat niet het geval is, zullen de huidige vergunninghouders daar eventueel voor worden gecompenseerd op basis van een correctiemechanisme. Als input voor de discussie over het al dan niet toepassen van een correctiemechanisme heeft de minister van EZ SEO, samen met IViR, verzocht om de waarde van de vergunning voor kavel A7 met gebruikmaking van het daarvoor ontwikkelde model opnieuw te bepalen, rekening houdend met sinds de vorige waardering gewijzigde objectieve kavelkenmerken en omstandigheden. Omdat de veilingprijs tot stand komt op een ander tijdstip, en daarmee mogelijk onder andere omstandigheden, dan de eerdere waardering van de vergunning voor kavel A7 door SEO, moeten gewijzigde zaken immers worden meegenomen in de waardering van de vergunning om deze vergelijkbaar te maken met de veilingprijs. In dit rapport wordt de voorgenomen methodiek uiteengezet om de waarde van de vergunning voor kavel A7 opnieuw te bepalen met het oog op gewijzigde objectieve kavelkenmerken en gewijzigde omstandigheden. De in dit document voorliggende methodiek is een concept, dat nog verdere uitwerking behoeft. Het doel van de consultatie is om marktpartijen inzicht te verschaffen in de opgestelde methodiek en hen in de gelegenheid te stellen hierop te reageren. Hierdoor kan sectorkennis en eventuele feedback uit de markt in een zo vroeg mogelijk stadium worden meegenomen bij het verder uitwerken van de methodiek.

The Zoom section of this new report tackles the question of "ownerless" archives - the so-called orphaned works. We analyse the European Directive on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works. This legal instrument goes some way towards providing guidelines on how to determine the orphan status of archives as well as on the permitted uses both nationally and internationally.

This article investigates the ethical and legal implications of increasingly manipulative practices in the gaming industry by looking at one of the currently most popular and profitable video games in the world. Fortnite has morphed from an online game into a quasi-social network and an important cultural reference point in the lifeworld of many (young) people. The game is also emblematic of the freemium business model, with strong incentives to design the game in a manner which maximizes microtransactions. This article suggests that to properly understand Fortnite's practices – which we predict will become more widely adopted in the video game industry in the near future – we need an additional perspective. Fortnite is not only designed for hyper-engagement; its search for continued growth and sustained relevance is driving its transformation from being a mere video game into a content delivery platform. This means that third parties can offer non game-related services to players within Fortnite's immersive game experience. In this paper, we draw on an ethical theory of manipulation (which defines manipulation as an ethically problematic influence on a person's behaviour) to explore whether the gaming experience offered by Fortnite harbours manipulative potential. To legally address the manipulative potential of commercial video game practices such as the ones found in Fortnite, we turn to European data protection and consumer protection law. More specifically, we explore how the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive can provide regulators with tools to address Fortnite's manipulative potential and to make Fortnite (more) forthright.

While discussions of data protection have focused on the larger, more established organisations, startups also warrant attention. This is particularly so for tech startups, who are often innovating at the `cutting-edge' -- pushing the boundaries of technologies that typically lack established data protection best-practices. Initial decisions taken by startups could well have long-term impacts, and their actions may inform (for better or for worse) how particular technologies and the applications they support are implemented, deployed and perceived for years to come. Ensuring that the innovations and practices of tech startups are sound, appropriate and acceptable should therefore be a high priority. This paper explores the attitudes and preparedness of tech startups to issues of data protection. We interviewed a series of UK-based emerging tech startups as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect, which revealed areas in which there is a disconnect between the approaches of the startups and the nature and requirements of the GDPR. We discuss the misconceptions and associated risks facing innovative tech startups, and offer a number of considerations for the firms and supervisory authorities alike. In light of our discussions, and given what is at stake, we argue that more needs to be done in order to help ensure that emerging technologies and the practices of the companies that operate them better align with the regulatory obligations. We conclude that tech startups warrant increased attention, support, and scrutiny in order to raise the standard of data protection for the benefit of us all.

This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant – an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant – as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable.

This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy. One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.

These two reports represent the work done as part of the reCreating Europe project on Authors and Performers and their experience with digital and disruptive factors and how they impact them professionally and financially. The first deliverable (D3.2) represents the survey questionnaire developed by Abeer Pervaiz and Joost Poort and the ensuing data set.

These two reports represent the work done as part of the reCreating Europe project on Authors and Performers and their experience with digital and disruptive factors and how they impact them professionally and financially. The final report (D3.3) is based on the results derived from the aforementioned survey which targeted artists from diverse creative fields within the European Union (EU). The first part of the report is the methodology section, where the research design is discussed. It discusses in detail the methods used in preparing the survey – from inception to execution. This is followed by an extensive data analysis section that provides descriptive results followed by an analysis of the results both empirically and from interviews. The report then ends with a discussion section and conclusions.

Free trade agreements are increasingly used to construct an additional layer of protection for source code of software. This comes in the shape of a new commitment which prohibits governments to require access to, or transfer of, the source code of software, subject to certain exceptions. A commitment on software source code is also part and parcel of an ambitious set of new rules on trade-related aspects of electronic commerce currently negotiated by 86 members of the World Trade Organization. Our understanding to date of how such a commitment inside trade law impacts on governments right to regulate digital technologies and the policy space that is allowed under trade law is limited. Access to software source code is for example necessary to meet regulatory and judicial needs in order to ensure that digital technologies are in conformity with individuals’ human rights and societal values. This article will unpack and analyze the implications of such a source code commitment for current and future digital policies by governments that aim to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability of computer and machine learning algorithms.

As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.

Centrale doelstelling van deze studie is het vaststellen van de economische en culturele gevolgen van file sharing voor muziek, film en games, voor de korte termijn en de langere termijn. Tot file sharing wordt zowel het uploaden als downloaden gerekend. Bij de onderzochte gevolgen voor de korte termijn gaat het om de directe baten en kosten voor de samenleving als geheel. Bij de effecten op de lange termijn zijn de veranderingen in de exploitatiemodellen meegenomen. Daarbij is aandacht besteed aan de gevolgen voor de toegankelijkheid en de culturele diversiteit. Op basis van bestaand bronnenmateriaal beschrijft deze studie de structuur en werking van de bedrijfstakken film, games en muziek en zijn de belangrijkste veranderingen in de businessmodellen besproken. Digitalisering heeft daar een grote invloed op. Vervolgens zijn de trends en ontwikkelingen geanalyseerd vanuit het juridisch kader, in het bijzonder vanuit het perspectief van auteursrecht. Verder is de concrete empirische werkelijkheid van file sharing in kaart gebracht door middel van gesprekken met een aantal fervente up- en downloaders en daarop voortbouwend, een representatief onderzoek onder 1500 Nederlandse internetgebruikers. Ook is een aantal gesprekken gevoerd met mensen werkzaam in één van de drie sectoren en, indien deze niet beschikbaar waren, vertegenwoordigers van de bedrijfstakken. Dit deel van het onderzoek had niet het karakter van een consultatie van alle betrokkenen. De uitkomsten van het onderzoek zijn vervolgens in een breder perspectief geplaatst aan de hand van vergelijkbaar wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat elders in de wereld is gehouden. Zo konden ook ontbrekende puzzelstukjes worden ingevuld en konden de effecten van file sharing op de betaalde consumptie van muziek, films en games nader worden onderzocht. Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat de economische effecten van file sharing op de Nederlandse welvaart op de korte en de lange termijn sterk positief zijn. Consumenten krijgen als gevolg van file sharing toegang tot een breed scala aan cultuurproducten. Dit heeft een welvaartsverhogend effect. Daar staat tegenover dat een daling van de omzet uit de verkoop van geluidsdragers, dvd’s en games als gevolg daarvan aannemelijk is. De effecten van onbetaald downloaden op de aanschaf van betaalde content zijn echter moeilijk vast te stellen. Voor de muziekindustrie geldt dat opnames, die gedownload worden, niet één op één vertaald kunnen worden naar gederfde omzet. Veel consumenten die downloaden zouden de muziek niet in vergelijkbare hoeveelheid tegen de nu geldende prijzen aanschaffen, wanneer onbetaald downloaden niet meer mogelijk zou zijn. Ze kunnen het zich niet veroorloven of hebben andere budgettaire prioriteiten. In dat verband wordt wel gesproken van een niet-koopkrachtige vraag. Ook zijn er veel mensen die downloaden om nieuwe muziek te leren kennen en eventueel te kopen als zij bevalt. Voor zover file sharing wel leidt tot een daling van de verkoop (vervanging), staat daar een welvaartsoverdracht van de producent naar de consument tegenover. Naar schatting ligt de toename van welvaart bij de consumenten in de orde van 200 miljoen euro per jaar. Daar tegenover staat een maximaal omzetverlies voor producenten en uitgevers van muziekopnames van 100 miljoen euro per jaar. De berekeningen zijn noodzakelijkerwijs gestoeld op vele aannames en bevatten onzekerheden omdat veel onderliggende gegevens niet met grote nauwkeurigheid bekend zijn.Een vergelijkbare uitspraak over films en games is niet mogelijk, al is de logica soortgelijk. 1 Inleiding en probleemstelling 8 1.1 Aanleiding 8 1.2 Probleemstelling 8 1.3 Onderzoeksvragen . 10 1.4 Leeswijzer 11 2 Stand van zaken in de entertainmentindustrie: film, gaming en muziek . 13 2.1 Inleiding . 13 2.2 Entertainmentindustrie: structuur, kenmerken en exploitatie 14 2.3 Marktontwikkelingen: film, games en muziek 27 2.4 Filmindustrie 32 2.5 Gamesindustrie 36 2.6 Muziekindustrie . 43 2.7 Conclusies en samenvatting . 52 3 Juridisch kader 55 3.1 Downloaden . 55 3.2 Uploaden 58 3.3 Aansprakelijkheid van tussenpersonen 60 3.4 Handhavingsinstrumenten en procedures 61 3.5 Beleidsontwikkelingen in Nederland . 63 3.6 Beleidsontwikkelingen op Europees niveau 64 3.7 Slot . 68 4 Downloaden in Nederland . 69 4.1 Onderzoeksopzet 69 4.2 Aantal downloaders en kopers van cd’s, muziekdownloads, dvd’s en games . 71 4.3 Profiel van onbetaald downloaders 74 4.4 Onbetaald downloaden nader bekeken 79 4.5 Betaald downloaden . 81 4.6 Downloaden en kopen: verhouding en omvang . 83 4.7 Interacties tussen downloaden en kopen 85 4.8 Bekendheid met wat wel en niet is toegestaan . 90 4.9 Samenvatting belangrijkste bevindingen . 91 5 Internationale vergelijking en literatuurstudie . 95 5.1 Inleiding . 95 5.2 Downloaders en downloads . 97 5.3 De relatie tussen file sharing en verkoop . 102 5.4 Conclusies 114 6 Maatschappelijke effecten . 116 6.1 Directe effecten file sharing: statische analyse 116 6.2 Dynamische en indirecte effecten 121 6.3 Conclusies 127 7 Conclusies en aanbevelingen . 129 Literatuur 139

Mobile health applications (‘health apps’) that promise the user to help her with some aspect of her health are very popular: for-profit apps such as MyFitnessPal, Fitbit, or Headspace have tens of millions of users each. For-profit health apps are designed and run as optimization systems. One would expect that these health apps aim to optimize the health of the user, but in reality they aim to optimize user engagement and, in effect, conversion. This is problematic, I argue, because digital health environments that aim to optimize user engagement risk being manipulative. To develop this argument, I first provide a brief analysis of the underlying business models and the resulting designs of the digital environments provided by popular for-profit health apps. In a second step, I present a concept of manipulation that can help analyze digital environments such as health apps. In the last part of the article, I use my concept of manipulation to analyze the manipulative potential of for-profit health apps. Although for-profit health can certainly empower their users, the conditions for empowerment also largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation. As a result, we should be cautious when embracing the empowerment discourse surrounding health apps. An additional aim of this article is to contribute to the rapidly growing literature on digital choice architectures and the ethics of influencing behavior through such choice architectures. I take health apps to be a paradigmatic example of digital choice architectures that give rise to ethical questions, so my analysis of the manipulative potential of health apps can also inform the larger literature on digital choice architectures.

In the European Strategy for Data,\ud the European Commission highlighted the EU’s ambition “to acquire a leading role in the data economy.”\ud At the same time, the Commission conceded that the\ud EU would have to “increase its pools of quality data\ud available for use and re-use.” In the creative industries, this need for enhanced data quality and interoperability is particularly strong (section A). Without data improvement, unprecedented opportunities\ud for monetising the wide variety of creative content in\ud EU Member States and making this content available\ud for new technologies, such as artificial intelligence\ud (“AI”) systems, will most probably be lost (section B).\ud The problem has a worldwide dimension. While the\ud US have already taken steps to provide an integrated\ud data space for music as of 1 January 2021, the EU is facing major obstacles not only in the field of music but also in other creative industry sectors (section C). Weighing costs and benefits (section D), there\ud can be little doubt that new data improvement initiatives and sufficient investment in a better copyright data infrastructure should play a central role in\ud EU copyright policy. The work notification system following from Article 17(4)(b) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market may offer an unprecedented opportunity to bundle and harmonize\ud data in a shared EU copyright data repository (section\ud E). In addition, a trade-off between data harmonisation and interoperability on the one hand, and transparency and accountability of content recommender\ud systems on the other, may pave the way for new initiatives (section F).

Wat te doen als je op Twitter door een anoniem profiel voor rotte vis wordt uitgemaakt? Het Nederlandse recht biedt verschillende mogelijkheden om identificerende gegevens te verkrijgen van internettussenpersonen. Maar hoe wordt de afweging met de bescherming van de persoonsgegevens van de anonymus gemaakt? Hoe verhoudt het recht op een doeltreffende voorziening in rechte zich tot het gegevensbeschermingsrecht? Het Hof van Justitie schrijft voor dat bij botsende fundamentele rechten het ‘juiste evenwicht’ moet worden gevonden. Dat blijkt de Nederlandse rechter nog niet zo eenvoudig te vinden, zo wordt duidelijk bij de bespreking van het Dutch FilmWorks-arrest in dit artikel.

The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce – a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.

When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data. Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data.While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain special categories of personal data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical.We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.

Driven by the promise of increased efficiencies and cost-savings, the public sector has shown much interest in automated decision-making (ADM) technologies. However, the rule of law and fundamental principles of good government are being lost along the way.

Cross-border flows of personal data have become essential for international trade. European Union (EU) law restricts transfers of personal data to a degree that is arguably beyond what is permitted under the EU’s World Trade Organization commitments. These restrictions may be justified under trade law’s ‘necessity test.’ The article suggests that they may not pass this test. Yet, from an EU law perspective, the right to the protection of personal data is a fundamental right. An international transfer of personal data constitutes a derogation from this right and, therefore, must be consistent with another necessity test, the ‘strict necessity’ test of the derogation clause of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article shows how a simultaneous application of the trade law and EU Charter ‘necessities’ to EU restrictions on transfers of personal data creates a catch-22 situation and sketches the ways out of this compliance deadlock.

Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.

The concept of essentially derived varieties (EDVs) under the UPOV Convention 1991 has presented many challenges both to the UPOV and users of the system. The concept of EDVs is not only framed in rather difficult language in the statute, it has proven equally difficult to apply. Moreover, gaining consensus on the exact interpretation of the concept, left to be implemented later on by courts and/or guidelines, has been an equally challenging task due to a lack of clarity in the provisions of the UPOV 1991 Convention. This article constitutes a novel and original contribution to the research that has been carried out in the area of EDVs. Novel approaches are necessary to untie the EDV knot. The approaches presented here are inspired by other areas of (intellectual property) law. A careful study of the solutions presented herein demonstrate that at least some of them can effectively put an end to at least some of the deadlock and legal uncertainty surrounding the EDV concept. It is hoped that this contribution and the approaches it puts forward can be the catalyst for a new debate, which is not only necessary but also long overdue.

Deepfakes are perceived as a powerful form of disinformation. Although many studies have focused on detecting deepfakes, few have measured their effects on political attitudes, and none have studied microtargeting techniques as an amplifier. We argue that microtargeting techniques can amplify the effects of deepfakes, by enabling malicious political actors to tailor deepfakes to susceptibilities of the receiver. In this study, we have constructed a political deepfake (video and audio), and study its effects on political attitudes in an online experiment ( N = 278). We find that attitudes toward the depicted politician are significantly lower after seeing the deepfake, but the attitudes toward the politician’s party remain similar to the control condition. When we zoom in on the microtargeted group, we see that both the attitudes toward the politician and the attitudes toward his party score significantly lower than the control condition, suggesting that microtargeting techniques can indeed amplify the effects of a deepfake, but for a much smaller subgroup than expected.